Britain should stop its obsession with getting single mothers into work and pursue unemployed fathers, David Cameron's poverty adviser said last night.
Hmm, tried that before, didn’t you, iDave?
You remember the CSA. Whatever happened to it, eh?
Oh, yeah. That’s right. It didn’t work. In fact, it did so poorly, it was taken over.
And it mostly targeted people in work, so you can imagine how well targeting the unemployed is going to work.
So what's the plan, Frank?
Well, yes, they should.Speaking at a lecture to the Attlee Foundation, a charity working in disadvantaged areas, he claimed the debate about poverty had been 'feminised', letting feckless fathers off the hook for living off benefits and failing to support their families.
He said men who refused to take a job offered to them should have their benefits cut altogether.
But if you think you can get that through Parliament, you’ve taken leave of your senses…
http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Deadbeat_Parents&p=getind&id=206
ReplyDeleteSherrif Joe's 'Deadbeat PArents Hall of Fame'
I'd support it only if there were a version of male abortion i.e. Man can legally state he'd prefer foetus aborted, and up to woman to support child if she decides to give birth.
ReplyDeleteSo it would actualy work if they could get it through parliment, cough.
ReplyDeleteHang about here. The main reason why there are so many 'single' mothers is because of the benefits system that pays them to do it. That is easily fixed. See Netherlands.
ReplyDeleteAs a separate issue, there should be statutory deductions from the father's dole money to pay for the kids. If the mother refuses to dob him in, she'll have to make her own way in life.
Further, CSA or CMEC was doomed to failure because the maintenance is not flat rate (as it is in civilised countries) it is (among other things) dependent on your income, so if you have more than two kids it is hardly worth while working once you have had tax and maintenance deducted from your salary. So they end up unemployed.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, the involvement of children to pay for makes a wee bit of a difference, but anyone on benefits refusing to work should have the benefits stopped.
ReplyDeleteI was once allowed to take home the princely sum of £128.64 a month through the CSA because my wife was working too. It was a cock-up and I got a large refund, but I never considered going on benefits to escape the payment.
But if you think you can get that through Parliament, you’ve taken leave of your senses…
ReplyDeleteThey, Dave Commyron, and his weird bedfellows are only Blair/Brown part II, so when did slight inconveniences like Parliament ever stop them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Sherrif Joe's 'Deadbeat PArents Hall of Fame'"
ReplyDeleteNow, there's an idea we could copy!
"I'd support it only if there were a version of male abortion i.e. Man can legally state he'd prefer foetus aborted, and up to woman to support child if she decides to give birth."
Yes. And with that, the court-mandated access to children a man is paying for (unless PROVEN domestic violence issues).
"So it would actualy work if they could get it through parliment, cough."
It'd work as well as anything else. I just can't see it being nodded through. Too many supporters of the underclass and the status quo.
"The main reason why there are so many 'single' mothers is because of the benefits system that pays them to do it. That is easily fixed."
True, and I'd certainly rather see them go for that FIRST.
"Further, CSA or CMEC was doomed to failure because the maintenance is not flat rate (as it is in civilised countries) it is (among other things) dependent on your income, so if you have more than two kids it is hardly worth while working..."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's yet another thing that would have to be resolved for this to stand a chance...
"...anyone on benefits refusing to work should have the benefits stopped."
Agreed. I can't see that getting through Parliament any easier though.
"They, Dave Commyron, and his weird bedfellows are only Blair/Brown part II, so when did slight inconveniences like Parliament ever stop them?"
Good point, but then, I think iDave places too much store in retaining his 'not the Nasty Party' image.